[standards-jig] [jepnews] JEP-0020: Client Feature Negotiation
julian at jabber.org
Mon Mar 4 20:53:44 UTC 2002
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 14:36, DJ Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 11:15:36AM -0800, Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> > > I read Julian's point not as one against how complex it is to program,
> > > rather how complex it becomes to understand from a human readable POV.
> > Aren't they one and the same (programmability and readability)? If you
> > aren't a programmer should you really be trying to read the raw XML? I am
> This is an interesting point, the sort that is best discussed in a pub :-)
> But (semi-)seriously, I don't personally think it's as black and white
> as programmer/non-programmer. I don't consider myself a hardcore programmer
> but always try to read debug output, logs, payloads, data traffic, and so
> on. Furthermore, I think it's less of a "do you understand (the implications
> of) what you're looking at" and more of a "can you read this without going
> Regular Jabber-XML is very easy on the eye. So is XML-RPC, to take a
> random example. Something like WDSL is not. Regardless of whether one
> is a programmer or not.
> I used to read snapdumps from MVS batch jobs in a previous life (era?).
> Didn't make me any more or any less a programmer.
You touch on one of the most important things about Jabber: its
I took a serious look at using UDDI over the summer. I don't care if you
windows users have UDDI libraries. There will not be UDDI libraries for
all Jabber platforms, so some poor Jabber developer will have to write
one. I don't think "there are existing libraries" is a good excuse for
having a protocol/description/XML stuff/etc being so incredibly
overcomplicated for what we want to do.
If UDDI were a popular open standard, I might consider it. But as is,
it's an overly complicated pre-existing solution to our problem. We want
a simple solution.
email: julian at jabber.org
jabber:julian at jabber.org
More information about the Standards